Impeachment hearings

[_EAllusion]

Here's Mitch McConnell arbiter of justice, going on the hub of right-wing propaganda to overtly state that he's coordinating with White House counsel on strategy to defend the President.

https://Twitter.com/Acyn/status/1205311801212190727

This is absolutely scandalous and if our media didn't have biases that heavily advantage Republican malfeasance, it would be treated that way. if a Democrat did this, the national conversation would be quite different. That he's so brazen about it is flaunting how above the law they are.

[_subgenius]

“I don’t want to make light of anybody’s substance abuse issues,” Mr. Gaetz said, adding that “it’s a little hard to believe that Burisma hired Hunter Biden to resolve their international disputes when he could not resolve his own dispute with Hertz rental car over leaving cocaine and a crack pipe in the car.” (emphasis mine)

Gaetz, the drunk driver, is a hell of a messenger on this point, but what's this got to do with anything? Are you unfamiliar with the concept of people with elite connections getting cush corporate board spots to send a message? Do you think McMaster got his position on the Theranos board for his expertise in biochemistry? This is an ordinary feature of the corporate world at home and abroad. It's seedy, but anyone deciding that Hunter Biden is where the line is drawn is a clown.

So give Creepy uncle Joe a pass and impeach Trump, yep you're on solid ground now.

[_EAllusion]

So give Creepy uncle Joe a pass and impeach Trump, yep you're on solid ground now.

Wait, I thought you were talking about Hunter Biden? You think that Joe Biden should be _____ because his son got a comfy position on a corporate board he wouldn't earn on the merits because that's how corporate boards operate? Or you think think this compares to a take your pick of impeachable offenses from Donald Trump how?

[_honorentheos]

I think you are misreading me here Honor. By marginal differences I mean that differences between potential party nominees explains only a small % of Presidential election outcomes at a National or state level. Bernie Sanders will perform about as well as Joe Biden and visa versa. Differences that voters think and say matter don’t actually matter all that much. A big caveat here is that elections can be decided within these marginal differences and can end up being decisive. So in a tight swing state like Arizona it could be a decisive difference. But the prediction that candidate A can win, but B cannot is usually misguided.

I would think this would be more obvious after Donald-freaking-Trump won, but political folk wisdom dies hard.

I was misreading you since I was trying to read your comment in light of why the party should look to motivate the left wing per Exiled's comment. If you're just commenting on the macro-factors of any Presidential election establishing the probability range of a candidate from the challenging party unseating the incumbent then I see what you are saying.

That said, wouldn't the definition of what it means for a state to be in play essentially mean we're looking at states where performance of the incumbent and any particular challenger falls within the range where the macros aren't predetermining the outcome? So either party has a chance of winning a state based on other factors? And one of those other factors also being the specific details associated with the specific candidate nominated? I believe you said as much, but I want to make that explicit that while the "political folk wisdom" that such things matter at the macro-scale of elections, it still holds true that as long as the macro-conditions mean the election is in play then the candidate chosen is quite realistically capable of deciding in whose favor it ends up breaking. And 2020 is in play for both parties right now. Trump has major upside factors offset by major downside factor which makes the election volatile. Upsides for him include a currently strong economy, just being the incumbent, motivated and immoveable base of voters, etc. Downsides are more squishy than most Democrats recognize. In my view, the biggest is how one views his activities as being scandalous or not. An administration seen as being overshadowed by major scandal makes for a major macro-political problem.

In Trump's case, though, Americans are divided on whether or not they view him as being embroiled in a scandal or just view it as Democrats trying to splash him with scandal as a political move going back to the Mueller investigation. While the issue is real, it's not exactly wrong to view the current impeachment proceedings as having political implications that can tilt the election in 2020 one way or the other. In fact, how successful or unsuccessful the implication becomes widespread that Trump IS embroiled in scandal could decide the election if there isn't a recession before then.

Anyway, I asked Exiled the question because I was interested in how he'd sell Sanders as the best choice for the Democrat nominee and it turned out to be because he favored Sanders for reasons. Ok.

[_canpakes]

So give Creepy uncle Joe a pass and impeach Trump, yep you're on solid ground now.

Wait, I thought you were talking about Hunter Biden? You think that Joe Biden should be _____ because his son got a comfy position on a corporate board he wouldn't earn on the merits because that's how corporate boards operate? Or you think think this compares to a take your pick of impeachable offenses from Donald Trump how?

And subs still can’t articulate the problem with Hunter Biden having a board seat, nor speak to any corruption.

Remember when subs used to argue here that Trump must be an excellent businessman because he sat on so many boards? Lol, good times.

[_Gunnar]

It is becoming increasingly obvious that the Republican's line of defense of Trump is devolving into "Okay, he did it. So what? Just get over it!" Either that or attacking the process, and even the very concept of impeachment and/or some combination of the above. And the more abundant and stronger the supporting evidence, the more determined they seem to just dismiss the evidence out of hand. Many of them, like Lindsey Graham, for example, just come right out and admit that they really don't care what the preponderance of the evidence indicates, and have no serious intention of even honestly looking at it. And no matter how thoroughly or often their defensive arguments are rebutted, they merely repeat the same argument that was just rebutted.

It's tragic how many just can't see that Trump and his cronies' attacking the free press as false news and the enemy of the people is precisely the same poisoning the well tactic used so successfully by Goebbels and Hitler to hoodwink the masses into supporting them. If the majority of the American people can't learn to figure that out, our republic is doomed.

[_honorentheos]

I do think it's interesting to look at early Democrat primary state polls and compare the differences between who is favored to win the state's delegates, and how a candidate polls head-to-head against Trump.

Like I pointed out, the Iowa polling shows Biden, Sanders, and Warren performing very strong with Democrat primary voters with Buttigieg doing well but not leading. But in polls of all voters asking who are they more likely to vote for, Trump or candidate "X"? Buttigieg is shown a point behind Trump but well within the margin of polling error which suggests they are essentially tied. What that suggests is while the Democrat party is looking at either name-recognition and establishment safety in Biden, or swinging left in Sanders and Warren, the majority of voters who might vote for either Trump or the Democrat nominee in Iowa want someone who is more moderate but also a fresh face.

[_Some Schmo]

If the majority of the American people can't learn to figure that out, our republic is doomed.

It's best to assume that's the case. At least you can get your disappointment over with now.

It seems pretty obvious to me that humanity is smart enough to blow itself up but not smart enough to prevent it. Religious freaks are hellbent on the planet's destruction.

[_honorentheos]

And subs still can’t articulate the problem with Hunter Biden having a board seat, nor speak to any corruption.

Remember when subs used to argue here that Trump must be an excellent businessman because he sat on so many boards? Lol, good times.

Subs, and Republicans, are relying on the, "If it looks like a duck it must be a duck" argument. It's not a bad play, and in my opinion would have been best countered by the House Judiciary Committee bringing in witnesses to testify about that event because it stops looking like a duck once one gets past the most basic line of reasoning -> Burisma was corrupt -> Burisma put Hunter Biden on their board -> Joe Biden called for the PG to be removed whose job it was to investigate Burisma -> Joe Biden did the exact same thing Democrats are accusing Trump of doing.

Trying to dodge it looks, well, dodgy. The best defense against, "If it looks like a duck" is to clearly point out how it doesn't look like a duck, doesn't quack, and has gills and flippers.

[_Some Schmo]

Subs, and Republicans, are relying on the, "If it looks like a duck it must be a duck" argument. It's not a bad play...

It's not a bad play if you assume your audience is made up of morons.

Bringing up corruption related to the Bidens in the face of all of the Trump family corruption is the thinnest of distractions, and only a moron would take it seriously.

And that's why it works among the GOP base.